Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council v Monk
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 October 1990 |
| Date | 12 October 1990 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Slade, Lord Justice Nicholls and Lord Justice Bingham
Landlord and tenant - joint tenancy - termination by one tenant
A notice to quit given by one of several joint tenants under a periodic tenancy had the effect of bringing that tenancy to an end even if the notice was given without the authority of any other tenant.
The decision in Greenwich London Borough Council v McGradyUNK ((1982) 267 EG 515) applied.
The Court of Appeal so stated in allowing an appeal by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham from an order of Judge Roger Cooke in West London County Court on February 15, 1990 whereby he dismissed their claim for possession of the ground floor flat at 35 Niton Street, Fulham and in dismissing an appeal by Mr James Martin Smith from an order of Mr A A Goymer, sitting as an assistant recorder in Barnet County Court on June 5, 1990 whereby he dismissed Mr Smith's appeal against an order of a registrar refusing to set aside an order for possession of a council house at 119 Alexandra Road, Muswell Hill.
Mr Paul Staddon for Mr Monk; Mr Mark Strachan, QC and Mr Lincoln Crawford for Hammersmith and Fulham.
Mr Anthony Radevsky for Mr Smith; Mr Charles Salter for Barnet.
LORD JUSTICE SLADE said that the two appeals raised a common question: whether under the general law, in the absence of a provision to the contrary in a tenancy agreement, a notice to quit given by one only of two joint lessees under a periodic tenancy, without the authority of the other, had the effect of bringing the tenancy to an end. In one case that had been answered by the court below in the affirmative, in the other case in the negative.
Submissions that the decision in McGrady, namely, that a notice to quit given by one of several joint lessees under a periodic tenancy brought the tenancy to an end, was per incuriam were largely based on cogent criticisms of the decision in a long and learned article by Mr Frank Webb in The Conveyancer (volume 47 (1983) pp194-210).
In summary that said that Sir John Donaldson, Master of the Rolls, in McGrady did not think it necessary to examine the case law in detail because he thought that could, for practical purposes, be taken from Leek and Moorlands Building Society v ClarkELR ((1952) 2 QB 788).
However, in that case the nature of a periodic tenancy was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council v Alexander-David
-
Newlon Housing Trust v Alsulaimen
...premises expiring on 4 December 1995. The effect of the notice was to bring the tenancy to an end on that date: see Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council v. Monk [1992] 1 A.C. 478. On 28 March 1996 the Trust commenced proceedings for possession against the husband, who had continued......
-
Gay v Sheeran
...for the reason that it is open to that other person to give notice to the landlord determining the tenancy —see Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council v Monk [1992] AC 478. So it is not a right which, in those circumstances, the legislature could be expected to have intended to prote......
-
R (Coombes) v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government
...officer visited the wife and asked her to sign a notice to quit. She was not advised as to its effect. In the light of Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Council v Monk [1992] 1 AC 478, that was that at common law the notice to quit by her terminated the joint tenancy. The effect was that she e......